Colorado House Judiciary committee advances bill to require courts to surface domestic‑violence findings before custody decisions

The House Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday to send an amended version of House Bill 1309 to the Appropriations Committee after a daylong hearing that split lawmakers and drew dozens of personal testimonies.

The measure, sponsored by Representatives Brad Froelich and (co‑prime) Story, requires family courts to identify and consider domestic violence, coercive control and related harms before allocating parental responsibilities. Sponsors said the bill does not change statutory definitions so much as consolidate them in one place and create a flowchart to guide judges through a triage process; an amendment removed a broad written‑finding requirement after judicial fiscal concerns.

Why it matters: Sponsors and many survivors told the committee that current practice can leave children in harm’s way because domestic‑violence evidence is minimized or not made explicit in custody orders. "We are ensuring that judges have the tools they need to keep children safe in family court," Representative Story said in opening remarks. Several witnesses recounted cases in which judges’ orders were followed by violent outcomes.

What supporters said: Survivors, victim‑advocates and anti‑domestic‑violence groups urged stronger judicial focus on patterns of coercive control, financial manipulation and technological abuse. David Carnes of Violence Free Colorado said the bill “helps to shift” family court practices by requiring clearer findings and safety‑first decision making. Multiple witnesses urged disability‑competent procedures and clearer paths to evaluation and treatment for parents found to have engaged in abuse.

What opponents said: Dozens of witnesses said the bill as drafted—particularly earlier language in Section 2 that sponsors said they would revisit—could sweep ordinary parenting into a new category of "health‑related abuse" or expand coercive‑control definitions in ways that risk constitutional challenge and weaponization in high‑conflict custody cases. Judy Atwood, policy director at SAFE, said the bill "frontloads a low‑threshold, high‑consequence finding" that can operate like a civil presumption with life‑changing effects. Several speakers pressed sponsors to limit the bill’s reach and to add procedural safeguards to avoid false positives.

Fiscal and process questions: Sponsors said an initial fiscal estimate that assumed courts would add five minutes of written work to 16,000 cases produced an $800,000 fiscal note; they amended the bill to narrow the burden and said the revised note was about 0.4 FTE of magistrate time concentrated on a much smaller subset of cases (roughly several hundred) that require deeper analysis. Legislative staff explained the fiscal note methodology to committee members during Q&A.

Amendments and vote: The committee adopted the multi‑page amendment L001, which sponsors said pulls definitions into one statutory location and replaces the mandatory written‑finding language with recorded findings and a flowchart that focuses full documentation on a smaller class of cases. A proposed amendment (L003) to add a broad 'good‑faith belief' exemption failed on a 6–4 roll call. After closing remarks, the committee voted 6–5 to send the amended bill to Appropriations with a favorable recommendation.

What’s next: HB 1309 will go to the House Appropriations Committee for fiscal review. Sponsors pledged to continue stakeholder work — particularly on definitions tied to health‑related decisions and disability accommodations — before the bill receives further consideration.

Context and limits: The article summarizes arguments and procedural outcomes recorded in committee testimony and the roll call. The bill text and the adopted amendment L001 contain the statutory language that will determine how courts implement the framework; this report does not interpret legislative intent beyond what sponsors and witnesses stated in the hearing.